On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:39:21PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:55:54PM +0000, Majd Dibbiny wrote:
> > > @@ -537,11 +538,13 @@ static int setup_device(struct ib_device *device)
> > > }
> > >
> > > memset(&device->attrs, 0, sizeof(device->attrs));
> > > - ret = device->ops.query_device(device, &device->attrs, &uhw);
> > > - if (ret) {
> > > - dev_warn(&device->dev,
> > > - "Couldn't query the device attributes\n");
> > > - goto port_cleanup;
> > > + if (device->ops.query_device) {
>
> > Why do we need these kind of checks now? In case device doesn’t
> > implement all mandatory kverbs, then clients won’t add it.. uverbs
> > has uverbs_cmd_mask in write path, and checks function pointer in
> > the ioctl path.. Maybe I’m missing something..
>
> Yah, I agree, the checks should be in the uverbs layer, and presumably
> they are all there already, it just needs careful checking.
Didn't we plan to remove uverbs_cmd_mask and move to != NULL checks?
>
> Jason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
